[mobile site, backup mobile]
[Calitics en espanol]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
The Calitics Show:
Event Calendar
October 2008
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services

ProgressiveCA Blogs

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Listen to Calitics Podcast on internet talk radioAdvertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Schwarzenegger Vetoes The California DREAM Act

by: David Dayen

Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 18:42:22 PM PDT


The Governor vetoed SB1, legislation which would have allowed students who are children of undocumented immigrants to apply for financial aid and have the same opportunity at contributing to the American dream as their counterparts.  These are young men and women who did not make the decision to come to this country, yet represent out best hope to continue as a strong nation by contributing to our economy and our historic diversity.  They consider themselves Americans and Californians and wish to use their talents and skills to benefit this country and this state.  The Governor said no.

And get this, he blamed it on the high cost of college (yeah, who's responsible for THAT?).

At a time when segments of California public higher education, the Universirt of California and the California State University, are raising fees on all students attending college in order to maintain the quality of education provided, it would not be prudent to place additional strain on the General Fund to accord the new benefit of providing state subsidized financial aid to students without lawful immigration status.

That expense will pay itself back 10 times over in the future.  But now the dream of a college education for these students becomes ever more remote.  This used to be a different kind of country.

David Dayen :: Schwarzenegger Vetoes The California DREAM Act
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
How? (0.00 / 0)
"That expense will pay itself back 10 times over in the future"

How?

The Silent Consensus


Try for 10 seconds (4.50 / 2)
to think beyond what's in front of you, and imagine the economic benefit to thousands of college-educated men and women working in the state for the next 50 years.  While you studiously fill accounting ledgers, you lose all sense of thinking toward the future.

This is but one of the sundry problems with libertarian fantasyland.


[ Parent ]
Dude (0.00 / 0)
I am well aware of the positive externalities of a college education

Having said that, federal law makes it illegal to employ illegal immigrants in those kinds of jobs (any jobs for that matter), so your argument is self-defeating

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
As proposed (8.00 / 2)
if they complied with the law by attending school that would put them on the path toward legal status. The law was a way for those who came here as children to obtain legal status. The point was to create educated citizens. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could object to that goal.

[ Parent ]
Are you saying that... (0.00 / 0)
by attending our public school system, they are going through the legal channels to have legal status?

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
The federal (0.00 / 0)
version of the DREAM ACT would create a path to citizenship, and the state version of the law would allow students to receive non-competetive state financial aid to make it do-able.

[ Parent ]
Path to citizenship... (0.00 / 0)
for all illegal immigrants, or only those who came when they had no choice in the matter?

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
for those who came before age 15.

[ Parent ]
Unsurprising (0.00 / 0)
And Arnold's excuse is dishonest. As you note, HE is largely responsible for the rising cost of college education in California. And these students are quite deserving of state subsidized financial aid - isn't that what they're getting in CA high schools, after all? The logic is not coherent, but it is at least consistent in one sense - everything Arnold's done while in office has been designed to limit the opportunities of working Californians.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

Illegal aliens are not (0.00 / 0)
"working Californians," I'm sorry (no not really).

"And these students are quite deserving of state subsidized financial aid - isn't that what they're getting in CA high schools, after all?"

Illegal aliens currently get in-state tuition if they have spent 3 years in and graduated from California high schools. That's consistent with your logic, financial aid is not

I'm not here to defend Arnold on higher education, but as long as law-abiding citizens have trouble affording college, I can't justify lending a helping hand to those who aren't even allowed to be here

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
They are law abiding citizens (0.00 / 0)
The idea that someone who came here illegally as a mere child is a lawbreaker is offensive. As long as you maintain that view I don't see the point to engaging any of your other ideas.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
No they're not (0.00 / 0)
They're not citizens

I realize it's not their fault, and I don't support deporting them. However, they are now of legal age, and have an obligation to obey our laws, starting with establishing legal residency. Otherwise, it's illegal to employ them in the various jobs requiring a college education, which defeats the purpose of them going to college

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
do you bother to read (0.00 / 0)
the DREAM act would put them on that path to establishing legal residency. 

[ Parent ]
The state one? (0.00 / 0)
No. The state one was about financial aid to them, we can't provide a path to citizenship for them. Only the Feds can, and the federal DREAM Act was defeated.

As for my take on the federal one, I only support it in a "for now on" context. Otherwise, they can easily commit fraud with it just like they do with American identification

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
And with regards to... (0.00 / 0)
"These are young men and women who did not make the decision to come to this country"

True, their parents made them. They are now of legal age, and have an obligation to obey our laws, starting with establishing legal residency. Until then, they have no right to access our treasury

"They consider themselves Americans and Californians and wish to use their talents and skills to benefit this country and this state."

Doesn't mean they are. If we consider the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? The answer is 4. Considering the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg

The Silent Consensus


So (0.00 / 0)
What is your proposed solution?

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK

[ Parent ]
Solution to (0.00 / 0)
the immigration problem at large? Or what to do with those who came and had no choice in the matter?

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Either one (0.00 / 0)
Take your pick.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK

[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
Immigration at large:

1. Finish the double-panel fence, across all 2,000 miles
2. Increase head count for security at the border
3. Deport those we come across, whether it be through law enforcement or social services (only exception: if they are reporting a crime to law enforcement, because the next time the crime could be done to citizens)
4. Enforce the laws against hiring illegal immigrants just like we enforce all our other labor laws

For those who came as kids and had no choice in the matter and are now of legal age, where I stand right now I wouldn't mind a path to citizenship, but only for now on

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
Mk (0.00 / 0)
How does that address the current population?

Given the recent judicial ruling against SS# verification, what sort of additional enforcement are you seeking?

What do you imagine the ramifications would be if all currently employed workers who are working illegally were fired?

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK


[ Parent ]
How?... (0.00 / 0)
Punish the employers for hiring them, and they will self-deport. If they're encountered through law enforcement or social services, they'll get deported

If our labor agencies can audit every scrap of employment minutia down to lunch and bathroom breaks, they have no excuse for not being able to determine the legal residency requirements that were supposed to be a key part of the 1986 amnesty bill

I would propose giving the employers a six month transition in order to help mitigate the effects of all this sudden firing

Lastly, I do support guest workers, as long as it does not favor those who are currently here illegally

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
Wow, that's a non sequitur (8.00 / 1)
But first of all, if I decided to change the definition of the word "leg" to include the dog's hind appendage, then yes, the dog would have five legs.

Perhaps if we just returned to the 19th Century immigration controls (read: no restrictions at all), we could quit playing semantics. Of course we could use a layer of documentation so that we can stop criminals, but until then continue playing...

Shouldn't 3 strikes apply to Arnold? Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3. Life Sentence!


[ Parent ]
First off... (0.00 / 0)
Yes, if we had the 19th century immigration controls, I would not have a problem with them coming

But, we don't. We need to follow our laws

Also, I don't support no restrictions at all

Second, immigrants should come being able to help us, not just to be helped by us. To paraphrase Harry Browne:

One type of immigrant sees America as the land of opportunity where hard work is rewarded. A place where he can raise his family in peace, free from intruders, both private and governmental, and free to speak and worship as he chooses. All he wants is a chance to prove himself. He helps us, and we help him

The other type sees America as the land of the big free lunch - where anyone can get free education, free health care, and free welfare. Letting those people in is not in our best interest

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
Assigning motivations (8.00 / 1)
Based on nothing in particular is bad form.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK

[ Parent ]
My point remains (0.00 / 0)
Part of coming here legally is pledging that they will be gainfully employed and not rely on government assistance, and that should stay

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Calitics Premium Ads

Advertisers